Hi Joe, Ham, Marsha, perhaps Ron, Arlo and whomever else is stuck in this two dimensional web,
Let's stick to logic for a second, for this is how philosophy works. Let's not get caught up in semantic misdirection and consider what we can logically create. When Joe speaks of emotions, he gets caught up in a self-referential circle. He defines emotions as indefinable. Why are they indefinable? Because they are emotions! I am not sure how far this logic will take one. Logic is structure, it is something we build on assumptions. Such structures can stretch to the stars, or down to the atom. We always begin in the middle of these. Emotions, or as Ham prefers, pre-Rational sentiments, create definitions. So we logically begin with "that which creates definitions". Our assumption is therefore that there is something which results in definitions and start the logical process. We can call this assumption anything we like. >From this assumption, we can logically work our way up into high level math, or down into mystical realities. We can define such results as Illusions, Delusions, Fantasy, Creativity, Evolution, Devolution, etc. Let us assume that all these things are what we have. So I will simplify all those words into one: Reality. Therefore in the first instance, we have "that which creates Reality". I am of course referring to our individual realities, or as Ham would state, our "sensibilities". While I enjoy reading Ham's reflections on what he sees, I do not agree with his assumption that "man is the measure of all things". I would say that "all things are the measure of man". By this, I mean that man operates within a world that is provided him. Man's measurements are simply a byproduct of existing measurements. Man harnesses these things and uses them for his own good. He cannot create them. I am not sure who started this thread, but the nature of the subject title seems to point to Marsha. The "agent" I would assume is similar to Ham's agent. I did not have the time to read the quotes that Marsha provided since I am more interested in personal contributions, and I do not need to read another interpretation of the Diamond Sutra written in English. I will say, however, that I disagree that the Self can create thoughts or action. I therefore prefer Ham's "witness". If somebody can demonstrate to me a logical or causal connection between the Self (our unique personal awareness), and thoughts (the action of the brain), I would most appreciate it. For example, what is the mechanism by which the Self creates thoughts? Where does this First Action lie? Best regards, I enjoy the posts. Mar > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
